Torn between DX and Full frame (D600/D610 vs D7100)

About to go SLR underwater (1st time) in a couple of months and these are the things in my mind right now:

option 1. Get a 2nd hand full frame for topside and use DX underwater.

option 2. Get a brand new full frame for both topside and underwater.

I wanted to consider the full frame sensor because I shoot sea/landscapes and wide angle long exposures topside and i wanted to feel the upgrade from a DX. However, I do not wish to disincline with the macro side as well. along with the learning curve from 60mm-105mm and the number of subjects you can go with it. If I go full frame, will I lose a lot of productivity on the macro side? or is the image quality of a Full frame's UWA shot worth losing the macro of a DX? Or does the full frame dominate on both aspects?

I understand that using the crop mode on the full frame makes the purpose of getting it, pointless.

Since the D610 is out, I might wait for the D600 to go cheaper or just go for the D610 (this is not the issue). Lets focus on hearing your thoughts, "if" you were me, would you go full frame or choose the top of the line DX?(I'd appreciate if we leave the the d800 and d400 unspoken and i cannot afford 2 housings for 2 ports.

Obviously this depends on me and there is no wrong or right answer. However, I am sure that your expert thoughts would help me more to factor out or weigh things better. Thank you in advanced! ; hope i posted in the right section.

Hi Tehuzed. I just spent a year thinking about this kind of thing, and I've just upgraded from a DX to FX for underwater work. What I concluded is that, if you cannot afford to work 2 systems for wide angle and macro, you need to decide on what your mainstream photographic work is and optimise for that. Mine is wide angle and I like the kind of images that typically have a high dynamic range. So I've gone for FX and accepted that I can still do perfectly good macro with a 105mm lens and diopters. In my view, you just cannot beat the many advantages that a full frame sensor brings. It is least limited by laws of physics and tends to give good high ISO performance, which has so many other advantages underwater. I'm not sure if the crop modes help too much, but I've seen plenty of good macro work with full frame.

I think that you should go with your main photographic intent, which seems to be wide angle. Then just live with the minor limitations of FX for macro.

I don't think the macro benefit/weakness is that black or white in real use. Sure, at 1:1 the APS-C with smaller pixels can resolve a bit more detail but the FF gives you a 1.5x wider FOV at 1:1. In my experience most of my macro photos are not at full 1:1 because I need to back off a bit to get the entire subject of interest in view. For those pictures I would expect the FF to actually work better because you cover the subject area with more and/or better quality pixels. On FF you are also more likely to use a longer focal length lens which means you get more bang (magnification) for your buck out of diopters.

I went from the D7000 to a D800 and haven't looked back. I got back the controls I missed from my D300s ,as well as amazing dynamic range and sharpness.

As far as macro, I do miss the smaller housing and using the 60 + diopter, but really using the 105 + diopter has been great, better than on the D7000 for sure. On the D800 as long as you get the subject inthe frame you can crop an image out of it, the files are so large... ;-). Not quite the same on the D610, but still impresive. And the sharpness is really incredible.

BTW, the D610 and D600 seem to be interchangeable in housings, so if you want to upgrade later you can.

Hi Tehuzed. I just spent a year thinking about this kind of thing, and I've just upgraded from a DX to FX for underwater work. What I concluded is that, if you cannot afford to work 2 systems for wide angle and macro, you need to decide on what your mainstream photographic work is and optimise for that. Mine is wide angle and I like the kind of images that typically have a high dynamic range. So I've gone for FX and accepted that I can still do perfectly good macro with a 105mm lens and diopters. In my view, you just cannot beat the many advantages that a full frame sensor brings. It is least limited by laws of physics and tends to give good high ISO performance, which has so many other advantages underwater. I'm not sure if the crop modes help too much, but I've seen plenty of good macro work with full frame.

I think that you should go with your main photographic intent, which seems to be wide angle. Then just live with the minor limitations of FX for macro.

Paul C

This really makes sense and I really learned from this response. Thanks for this genius thought. Much appreciated!

I don't think the macro benefit/weakness is that black or white in real use. Sure, at 1:1 the APS-C with smaller pixels can resolve a bit more detail but the FF gives you a 1.5x wider FOV at 1:1. In my experience most of my macro photos are not at full 1:1 because I need to back off a bit to get the entire subject of interest in view. For those pictures I would expect the FF to actually work better because you cover the subject area with more and/or better quality pixels. On FF you are also more likely to use a longer focal length lens which means you get more bang (magnification) for your buck out of diopters.

Bart

Thank you, Bart! Awesome.

I went from the D7000 to a D800 and haven't looked back. I got back the controls I missed from my D300s ,as well as amazing dynamic range and sharpness.

As far as macro, I do miss the smaller housing and using the 60 + diopter, but really using the 105 + diopter has been great, better than on the D7000 for sure. On the D800 as long as you get the subject inthe frame you can crop an image out of it, the files are so large... ;-). Not quite the same on the D610, but still impresive. And the sharpness is really incredible.

BTW, the D610 and D600 seem to be interchangeable in housings, so if you want to upgrade later you can.

I suggest you to consider the natural maximization of deep of field offered by DX format, especially using wide angle lenses. Look the fantastic manattee pictures by Carol Grant (and her great blog). FX format give better performance in large print (thinking about D800) and normally give more hight ISO quality and large tonal gamma (larger than any DX sensor). But I believe that the increasing deep of field is the true DX skill, very very usefully inside the water! If you want to have an idea of what I'm talking to, take a look here

Location:Trondheim, Norway. About 30 minutes' drive from where Hell occasionally freezes over

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:50 AM

I suggest you to consider the natural maximization of deep of field offered by DX format, especially using wide angle lenses. [...] I believe that the increasing deep of field is the true DX skill, very very usefully inside the water!

I really wouldn't make this the deciding factor for the choice between DX and FX. At the same field of view (e.g. 10mm on DX and 15mm on FX), the difference in DOF between DX and FX is equivalent to roughly one f-stop. The higher ISO signal/noise ratio of the FX sensor will allow you to up the ISO and stop down the aperture to regain the DOF.

What's interesting is that if you compare at identical FL rather than at identical FOV, an FX sensor will give the best DOF. Play with a DOF calculator, and you'll see that.

IMO, this is the best advice in the thread:

if you cannot afford to work 2 systems for wide angle and macro, you need to decide on what your mainstream photographic work is and optimise for that.

There is an argument between FX and DX for experienced underwater photographers, but, as a beginner and despite the comments above, the learning curve is going to be smoother with a DX system. FX magnifies all of the differences between underwater and topside photography: getting close, focussing, balancing artificial and ambient light at an optimum f-stop, getting the right lens and port combination.

I enjoy my FX camera, but if I were rich I would use both an FX and a DX system depending on what I was shooting. There are some eminent photographers who do just that.

There is an argument between FX and DX for experienced underwater photographers, but, as a beginner and despite the comments above, the learning curve is going to be smoother with a DX system. FX magnifies all of the differences between underwater and topside photography: getting close, focussing, balancing artificial and ambient light at an optimum f-stop, getting the right lens and port combination.

I enjoy my FX camera, but if I were rich I would use both an FX and a DX system depending on what I was shooting. There are some eminent photographers who do just that.

Nice photos tdpriest. On your 2013 Lembeh trip, are you using a DX or an FX?

I'm not a regular fisheye user, I prefer rectilinear wide angle lenses and in this applications DX give some advantages. Obviously FX sensor are more efficient in terms of ISO, and Gamma, that the reason of my S&S MDX D800 + extensions and dome port for Nikon 17-35. Furthermore, normally DX camera are less bigger than the FX which means more compact housing (is a great skill when you package the equipment).

Today the photography community looks to Olympus OEM-D System with increasing interest. Housing manufacturer started to build housing for the newest Olympus and I believe that 4/3 format System will give new great opportunities to the users.

I've just to say only one thing more: I make shot by FOW not by FL, the first imposes the second not the contrary (sorry for my bad bad english ... )